12 ms·

> Of course it's incompatible. If there is no such thing as truth in science, that eliminates truth as a goal. You're confusing epistemology and ontology here.

by mjn 14y ago

> Of course it's incompatible. If there is no such thing as truth in science, that eliminates truth as a goal. You're confusing epistemology and ontology here. There are things in the world which are physically true or false. That you cannot conclusively prove a particular proposition is true is an epistemological/methodological issue which is not incompatible with the existence of external reality, or the idea that the purpose of our methodologies is to more accurately model said external reality. And yes, one way we do that is by incrementally pruning theories; and another way we do it is by replacing entire theories. I've read Kuhn, so I don't have any conception of science as an incremental ratchet or anything. Put differently, there is an objective reality, and science is a method for investigating it. The fact that you can't declare victory, having arrived at a flawless transparent understanding of the objective reality, is not a good argument against either the existence, or the claim that the purpose of science is to attempt to model it. Without that basis science makes no sense in the first place, and you're at social constructivism.

lutusp 14y ago
EDIT: this thread, and the downvotes against this specific post, only demonstrate the futility of trying to debate with philosophers. For a philosopher, everything simultaneously is, and is not, science. For a scientist, Creationism is not science and doesn't belong in the classroom. Take your pick. ------------------------------------------------- > There are things in the world which are physically true or false. We're not discussing the world. We're discussing science. > Put differently, there is an objective reality, and science is a method for investigating it. (a) False as stated. (b) You skipped the part where we address the role of truth. > The fact that you can't declare victory ... Meaning discover absolute truth? That's not science's criterion for victory. > ... or the claim that the purpose of science is to attempt to model it [ "it" apparently meaning "arrive at a flawless transparent understanding of the objective reality" ]. That is not science's purpose. That's religion's purpose. Science has realistic goals, religion doesn't. > Without that basis science makes no sense in the first place ... Maybe not to you, but to a scientist, it makes perfect sense. This conversation reminds me why Richard Feynman disliked philosophers so much. Philosophical debates can produce anything except a working vaccine.
- pharrington 14y ago
  Eh, it seems more that it's just hard for some people to know when to stop trying to apply philosophy to something. I find myself often engaging in a whole lot of philosophic thought, but I know better than to think that has any bearing on science. Derails.
- politician 14y ago
  Fascinating. How do philosophers and scientists react to Godel's incompleteness theorem w.r.t. falsification? To me, at least, it seems to suggest that falsification is a flashlight that for whatever reason fails to illuminate certain otherwise possible paths. (I understand that the theorem applies in the context of "consistent" formal systems, and that falsification is about the process of refining models of systems to be more consistent. It's interesting that the emergent properties of the pursuit of falsification bring about a paradoxical system in the limit.)
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > How do philosophers and scientists react to Godel's incompleteness theorem w.r.t. falsification? I can't speak for philosophers, but as to scientists, the issue of falsification and irreducible uncertainty are separate in nearly all cases. Remember that the Incompleteness Theorems address true assertions that cannot be proven within reasonably complex axiomatic systems -- that's a fair remove from empirical science, just as mathematics is. > To me, at least, it seems to suggest that falsification is a flashlight that for whatever reason fails to illuminate certain otherwise possible paths. Not at all. Falsification is a very reliable test that can be used to eliminate theoretical assertions from any further consideration, as in the classic "black swan" example already given above. It's unambiguous. > It's interesting that the emergent properties of the pursuit of falsification bring about a paradoxical system in the limit. No, neither paradoxical nor ambiguous. A classic falsification has properties that eliminate theories from consideration, period, full stop. Examples abound -- the Ptolemaic system, the ether theory, phlogiston, and so forth.
    - politician 14y ago

by mjn 14y ago

lutusp 14y ago

EDIT: this thread, and the downvotes against this specific post, only demonstrate the futility of trying to debate with philosophers. For a philosopher, everything simultaneously is, and is not, science. For a scientist, Creationism is not science and doesn't belong in the classroom. Take your pick. ------------------------------------------------- > There are things in the world which are physically true or false. We're not discussing the world. We're discussing science. > Put differently, there is an objective reality, and science is a method for investigating it. (a) False as stated. (b) You skipped the part where we address the role of truth. > The fact that you can't declare victory ... Meaning discover absolute truth? That's not science's criterion for victory. > ... or the claim that the purpose of science is to attempt to model it [ "it" apparently meaning "arrive at a flawless transparent understanding of the objective reality" ]. That is not science's purpose. That's religion's purpose. Science has realistic goals, religion doesn't. > Without that basis science makes no sense in the first place ... Maybe not to you, but to a scientist, it makes perfect sense. This conversation reminds me why Richard Feynman disliked philosophers so much. Philosophical debates can produce anything except a working vaccine.

pharrington 14y ago
Eh, it seems more that it's just hard for some people to know when to stop trying to apply philosophy to something. I find myself often engaging in a whole lot of philosophic thought, but I know better than to think that has any bearing on science. Derails.
politician 14y ago
Fascinating. How do philosophers and scientists react to Godel's incompleteness theorem w.r.t. falsification? To me, at least, it seems to suggest that falsification is a flashlight that for whatever reason fails to illuminate certain otherwise possible paths. (I understand that the theorem applies in the context of "consistent" formal systems, and that falsification is about the process of refining models of systems to be more consistent. It's interesting that the emergent properties of the pursuit of falsification bring about a paradoxical system in the limit.)
- lutusp 14y ago
  > How do philosophers and scientists react to Godel's incompleteness theorem w.r.t. falsification? I can't speak for philosophers, but as to scientists, the issue of falsification and irreducible uncertainty are separate in nearly all cases. Remember that the Incompleteness Theorems address true assertions that cannot be proven within reasonably complex axiomatic systems -- that's a fair remove from empirical science, just as mathematics is. > To me, at least, it seems to suggest that falsification is a flashlight that for whatever reason fails to illuminate certain otherwise possible paths. Not at all. Falsification is a very reliable test that can be used to eliminate theoretical assertions from any further consideration, as in the classic "black swan" example already given above. It's unambiguous. > It's interesting that the emergent properties of the pursuit of falsification bring about a paradoxical system in the limit. No, neither paradoxical nor ambiguous. A classic falsification has properties that eliminate theories from consideration, period, full stop. Examples abound -- the Ptolemaic system, the ether theory, phlogiston, and so forth.
  - politician 14y ago