4 ms·

I've said this before in not the same words, and I am always downvoted here on hackernews: people need to understand theory of knowledge before they understand

by m101 2y ago

I've said this before in not the same words, and I am always downvoted here on hackernews: people need to understand theory of knowledge before they understand science. Physics and physicists are the worst offenders.

feoren 2y ago
If by "theory of knowledge", you mean they need to have read a bunch of philosophical musings on epistemology, then I strongly agree with the downvoters, because that's utter nonsense. If you mean anything else by that, then you're being way too vague to contribute to a technical discussion, so again I agree with the downvoters. Try defining what you mean by "theory of knowledge" and explain why you think that's required to "understand science" (and you might want to explain what you mean by that too) and I suspect you'll see a lot fewer downvotes.
- m101 2y ago
  Theory of knowledge "is a branch of philosophy that examines the nature, origin, and limits of knowledge". Scientists need to understand the limits of knowledge which may be acquired by science. Scientists think they are in the unique possession of tools which ascertain truths - this is misled.
btilly 2y ago
This strongly depends on what you mean by "theory of knowledge". If you mean the practical importance of self-honesty, and a historical awareness of how easily we slip into self-delusion, then I agree. See, for instance, https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm for a very famous speech on exactly this topic. A lot of Feynman's writing touches on the same issue. If you mean the musings of philosophers on epistemology, then I emphatically disagree. The philosophers in question generally have failed to demonstrate that they understand science. And when they venture into science, they generally fail to live up to the ideals that they proclaim that scientists should follow. As an example I direct you to the sight of Karl Popper arguing to the end of his days that quantum mechanics cannot be a correct scientific theory. An opinion that began because a probabilistic theory cannot in principle be falsified. In fact QM is a scientific theory, and it stands as an example falsifying Popper's criterion for science! I find it very ironic that Feynman is so disliked by philosophers for having been honest about how irrelevant they are to science. And philosophers in turn have failed to recognize Feynman's explanations of how to do science as a key topic that should be included in any proper philosophy of science.
- m101 2y ago
  I meant your second perspective. I'm in the Popper camp on your example. You may have good reasons as to why you say he's wrong, but isn't that the scientific method: showing things to be false. If it can't be shown to be false then how can it be scientific? It might be some other branch of thought. On the specific case of quantum mechanics - I want to see these forever promised quantum computers actually doing something useful. The promises went from (Vs classical computers) they will do everything faster, to they will do some things faster, to they will do some things not achievable at all. And yet, they still haven't done anything as far as I can tell. Physicists need to answer honestly for this.
  - btilly 2y ago
    From my personal observation, those whose scientific understanding I admire mostly see little value in what the philosophers have produced. Those who I see admiring the philosophers seldom demonstrate much scientific understanding. Therefore my personal observations do not lead me to the belief that the philosophy helps scientific observation. You are an illustration. You just argued that one of the most successful scientific theories over the last century should not be considered scientific because it is probabilistic in nature. In so doing you deny all of the evidence for it. Including the theory that allowed us to build the transistors that allow your computer to work. Evolution these days depends on the theory of population genetics, which is again fundamentally probabilistic in nature. Are you now going to take the position that the theory of evolution is also not scientific? If so, then your definition of science is so ludicrous that I'm comfortable in dismissing it with derision.
    - m101 2y ago
      We believe things are probabilistic, but we don't know it is so. To the best of our ability to measure it looks that way. I don't think we can say any more than that. I am not denying that the transistor is useful and that science does useful things. I believe a "successful theory" is one that should produce provably good predictions. Quantum computing cannot prove it works yet despite having made promises for a long time. But you're right, I'm not a scientist, and anyone reading this should know that. I will change my opinion on quantum stuff when we find it produces unfalsifiable quantum computing results that factor products of large prime numbers (or whatever else they promise to do). But as of right now I believe there is something wrong in quantum computing.
hyperbrainer 2y ago
Amusingly, the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programma - an A-Levels like uni-prep course - has a subject called TOK: Theory of Knowledge with these intentions.
- m101 2y ago
  And it was with people of this very course that I have been impressed by. They learnt things at a young age and it stayed with them.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

by m101 2y ago

feoren 2y ago

If by "theory of knowledge", you mean they need to have read a bunch of philosophical musings on epistemology, then I strongly agree with the downvoters, because that's utter nonsense. If you mean anything else by that, then you're being way too vague to contribute to a technical discussion, so again I agree with the downvoters. Try defining what you mean by "theory of knowledge" and explain why you think that's required to "understand science" (and you might want to explain what you mean by that too) and I suspect you'll see a lot fewer downvotes.

m101 2y ago
Theory of knowledge "is a branch of philosophy that examines the nature, origin, and limits of knowledge". Scientists need to understand the limits of knowledge which may be acquired by science. Scientists think they are in the unique possession of tools which ascertain truths - this is misled.

btilly 2y ago

This strongly depends on what you mean by "theory of knowledge". If you mean the practical importance of self-honesty, and a historical awareness of how easily we slip into self-delusion, then I agree. See, for instance, https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm for a very famous speech on exactly this topic. A lot of Feynman's writing touches on the same issue. If you mean the musings of philosophers on epistemology, then I emphatically disagree. The philosophers in question generally have failed to demonstrate that they understand science. And when they venture into science, they generally fail to live up to the ideals that they proclaim that scientists should follow. As an example I direct you to the sight of Karl Popper arguing to the end of his days that quantum mechanics cannot be a correct scientific theory. An opinion that began because a probabilistic theory cannot in principle be falsified. In fact QM is a scientific theory, and it stands as an example falsifying Popper's criterion for science! I find it very ironic that Feynman is so disliked by philosophers for having been honest about how irrelevant they are to science. And philosophers in turn have failed to recognize Feynman's explanations of how to do science as a key topic that should be included in any proper philosophy of science.

m101 2y ago
I meant your second perspective. I'm in the Popper camp on your example. You may have good reasons as to why you say he's wrong, but isn't that the scientific method: showing things to be false. If it can't be shown to be false then how can it be scientific? It might be some other branch of thought. On the specific case of quantum mechanics - I want to see these forever promised quantum computers actually doing something useful. The promises went from (Vs classical computers) they will do everything faster, to they will do some things faster, to they will do some things not achievable at all. And yet, they still haven't done anything as far as I can tell. Physicists need to answer honestly for this.
- btilly 2y ago
  From my personal observation, those whose scientific understanding I admire mostly see little value in what the philosophers have produced. Those who I see admiring the philosophers seldom demonstrate much scientific understanding. Therefore my personal observations do not lead me to the belief that the philosophy helps scientific observation. You are an illustration. You just argued that one of the most successful scientific theories over the last century should not be considered scientific because it is probabilistic in nature. In so doing you deny all of the evidence for it. Including the theory that allowed us to build the transistors that allow your computer to work. Evolution these days depends on the theory of population genetics, which is again fundamentally probabilistic in nature. Are you now going to take the position that the theory of evolution is also not scientific? If so, then your definition of science is so ludicrous that I'm comfortable in dismissing it with derision.
  - m101 2y ago
    We believe things are probabilistic, but we don't know it is so. To the best of our ability to measure it looks that way. I don't think we can say any more than that. I am not denying that the transistor is useful and that science does useful things. I believe a "successful theory" is one that should produce provably good predictions. Quantum computing cannot prove it works yet despite having made promises for a long time. But you're right, I'm not a scientist, and anyone reading this should know that. I will change my opinion on quantum stuff when we find it produces unfalsifiable quantum computing results that factor products of large prime numbers (or whatever else they promise to do). But as of right now I believe there is something wrong in quantum computing.

hyperbrainer 2y ago

Amusingly, the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programma - an A-Levels like uni-prep course - has a subject called TOK: Theory of Knowledge with these intentions.

m101 2y ago
And it was with people of this very course that I have been impressed by. They learnt things at a young age and it stayed with them.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]