4 ms·

I would suspect the downvotes (not from me) have more to do with the fact that your reply is a mere polemic, lashing out about how you hate philosophers and Fey

by mjn 14y ago

I would suspect the downvotes (not from me) have more to do with the fact that your reply is a mere polemic, lashing out about how you hate philosophers and Feynmann was right, and rather than rationally responding to my argument. The way we scientists respond to arguments is not to go on hysterical and absurd rants, in this case how I must be a Creationist (?) because I'm defending the rather common view (among scientists) that science is a method for discovering facts about the external world. Arguing that via the scientific method we've arrived at a fairly good understanding of how humans evolved which is likely true in important parts is, in fact, quite the opposite of being a Creationist. If anything, that view is unpopular among philosophers, where various kinds of social constructionist views are more prominent. Those views emphasize (as you do) that we cannot have unmediated access to the real external world, so instead they focus on the sociological processes by which scientific theories get proposed, popularized, abandoned, etc. It is indeed true that science can produce a working vaccine.

lutusp 14y ago
> rather than rationally responding to my argument. There is no rational response to your argument. That's why I replied as I did. Philosophy isn't a science, amenable to scientific debate and a conclusion based on evidence, which is why philosophical arguments have the character they do -- interminable and inconclusive. > that science is a method for discovering facts about the external world. Necessary but not sufficient. When a theory about observations is proposed and then tested, it is then that we cross the threshold of science. "Discovering facts about the external world" is not science, otherwise my saying "stars are little points in the night sky" would qualify as science. It doesn't, because no testable, falsifiable explanation is proposed. My saying "I have a cure for the common cold -- I shake a dried gourd over the patient" is not science, both because it doesn't consider other explanations and because it doesn't propose an explanation. I have "discovered a fact about the external world" but what I have done is still not science. Science is not "discovering facts about the external world". Science must include falsifiable explanations, explanations that are cast out if they fail subsequent tests. > Arguing that via the scientific method we've arrived at a fairly good understanding of how humans evolved which is likely true in important parts is, in fact, quite the opposite of being a Creationist. That's true only if we try to explain what we have observed, and accept the possibility of falsification of our explanations. Creationism and evolution don't differ as descriptions, they differ as explanations, and by the property that a falsification would destroy the nicest-sounding theory. The above is what separates science and philosophy -- in science, concrete statements lead to concrete procedures for weeding out indefensible ideas.
nessus42 14y ago
It should be noted that Feynmann himself believed that science revealed truth, as he said so on numerous occasions. Here's one example: "[The Big Bang] is a much more exciting story to many people than the tales which other people used to make up, when wondering about the universe we lived in on the back of a turtle or something like that. They were wonderful stories, but the truth is so much more remarkable. And, so, what’s the wonder in physics to me is that it’s revealed the truth is so remarkable.”

by mjn 14y ago

lutusp 14y ago

> rather than rationally responding to my argument. There is no rational response to your argument. That's why I replied as I did. Philosophy isn't a science, amenable to scientific debate and a conclusion based on evidence, which is why philosophical arguments have the character they do -- interminable and inconclusive. > that science is a method for discovering facts about the external world. Necessary but not sufficient. When a theory about observations is proposed and then tested, it is then that we cross the threshold of science. "Discovering facts about the external world" is not science, otherwise my saying "stars are little points in the night sky" would qualify as science. It doesn't, because no testable, falsifiable explanation is proposed. My saying "I have a cure for the common cold -- I shake a dried gourd over the patient" is not science, both because it doesn't consider other explanations and because it doesn't propose an explanation. I have "discovered a fact about the external world" but what I have done is still not science. Science is not "discovering facts about the external world". Science must include falsifiable explanations, explanations that are cast out if they fail subsequent tests. > Arguing that via the scientific method we've arrived at a fairly good understanding of how humans evolved which is likely true in important parts is, in fact, quite the opposite of being a Creationist. That's true only if we try to explain what we have observed, and accept the possibility of falsification of our explanations. Creationism and evolution don't differ as descriptions, they differ as explanations, and by the property that a falsification would destroy the nicest-sounding theory. The above is what separates science and philosophy -- in science, concrete statements lead to concrete procedures for weeding out indefensible ideas.

nessus42 14y ago

It should be noted that Feynmann himself believed that science revealed truth, as he said so on numerous occasions. Here's one example: "[The Big Bang] is a much more exciting story to many people than the tales which other people used to make up, when wondering about the universe we lived in on the back of a turtle or something like that. They were wonderful stories, but the truth is so much more remarkable. And, so, what’s the wonder in physics to me is that it’s revealed the truth is so remarkable.”