Is science at odds with philosophy?

[Gottservant]

So just don't believe it.
No faith is required then.

Yes, but without faith, I could be worse than "wrong".

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well I know of people who have woken up and found their car was missing, so those people wouldn't see much contrast there now, would they?

They just found the assumption that it would be where they left it was mistaken. It happens now and then, but for any one person it's sufficiently infrequent that they're shocked when it happens (their assumption is shown to be unreliable).

(I would say the water out of the tap example you gave above however, provides the contrast you mean there.)

It may also happen that you turn on the tap and no water comes out ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Gottservant]

Those questions have no relevance to evolution whatsoever.

No, you are mistaken. Questions like this are important to science because "science needs to know what a specie's optimum is" (something that can be achieved in Heaven) and "science needs to know objectively what a subspecie's potential is (something that can be motivated by Heaven).

These are just two examples. There is no word "for being in Heaven" or "motivated by Heaven". But there you have it, they are useful concepts.

How do you think these things can be discovered? why is it a problem for science?

I think because you phrase the relationship as "a problem" your sin, remains "getting more difficult". That is, in the sense that if your scientific discoveries were getting easier and more evident, your science would be proving true.

 

[SelfSim]

They just found the assumption that it would be where they left it was mistaken. It happens now and then, but for any one person it's sufficiently infrequent that they're shocked when it happens (their assumption is shown to be unreliable).
..
It may also happen that you turn on the tap and no water comes out ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The reasons for expecting water to come out of a tap, can be based on physics (which is quite reliable). The reasons for expecting the car to be there in the morning, is based on the belief that personal past experiences will recur (aka: a belief in determinism .. which is quite unreliable).
One is not based on a belief .. the other isn't.

 

[Ophiolite]

The reasons for expecting water to come out of a tap, can be based on physics (which is quite reliable). The reasons for expecting the car to be there in the morning, is based on the belief that personal past experiences will recur (aka: a belief in determinism .. which is quite unreliable).
One is not based on a belief .. the other is.

Do you want to think very carefully on exactly what you have posted, then post a correction/retraction? No? Fair enough.

 

[The Barbarian]

So if I understand, your general line of query there might be: Has Popper's falsification of scientific theories concept been replaced, (ie: sort of overwritten), by the complexities inherent in the myriad-mesh of interrelated scientific theories?

I wouldn't have put it that way, but yes, I suppose so.

If so, then think it has .. and any results hinting at falsification of a specific theory buried in amongst that mesh, are sort of glossed over in the positivistic rumble towards the view that the future will likely sort out those point discrepencies.

You mean logical positivism?

Maybe. I'm a biologist, not a philosopher, so I'm inclined to whatever works.

 

[The Barbarian]

The reasons for expecting water to come out of a tap, can be based on physics (which is quite reliable). The reasons for expecting the car to be there in the morning, is based on the belief that personal past experiences will recur (aka: a belief in determinism .. which is quite unreliable).

My expectation of water from a tap is based on past experience that shows the water system in my community is reliable and that water pressure will be there for me today, because my past experiences show me that I can trust it.

However, there is always the possibility of a main breakage that would let me down. Determinism, as far as I can gather, is the assertion that every event has a cause. Hence, pressure on the water in the pipes caused by a large amount of water kept at a much higher level than my faucet is the reason water comes out when I open the faucet.

One is not based on a belief .. the other is.

On the macro level of the natural universe, every event appears to have a cause. Can you think of an exception?

 

[SelfSim]

Hmm .. there are subtleties in the point I'm making here, so there's not much point I can see in arguing over the possible scenarios which might exclude those subtleties by resetting the conditions in an imaginary thought experiment. (Not that I'm saying anyone's doing that here, I might add).

The type of determinism recognised in objective science (eg: Physics), is not based on the assumed belief that it exists and is true, independently from some theory. In fact, the type inferred when considering, say, empirical relationships, is well constrained by testing and doesn't necessarily have to be taken as being universally true. Not so, apparently, in philosophical thinking.

The method used in making assumptions which set our expectations, is what's important here. @FB's 'unconscious' (or intuitive/unthinking?) assumptions are still assumptions (or models) formed by a conscious mind, whether that is recognised by the person making them, or not. If that were not so, the person would be in an uncommunicative state and any assumptions they form, are simply irrelevant to us and a non-imagined universe. There is no useful distinction (or contrast) there, as far as distinguishing what the reality might turn out to be for a conscious mind, as far as I can make out(?) The important distinction, when it comes to physical reality, (and science), is whether those assumptions are arrived at by relying on beliefs, or by relying on the scientific method. Both methods also usually permit tracing back to their respective base conditions, in order to find out 'the how' they were formed.

I'm pretty sure that's all fairly obvious to most posters on this thread anyway, yet why isn't the emphasis on the 'how' distinction equally as obvious?

I don't mind @FB campaigning for distinct cognitive models formed in different parts the brain, for cognitive research purposes, but that's not where 'the cut' lies for me, when discussing 'tensions' between philosophy and science .. Am I mistaken in thinking that(?)

 

[SelfSim]

Do you want to think very carefully on exactly what you have posted, then post a correction/retraction? No? Fair enough.

Just did.
ETA: .. and it wasn't a correction/retraction.

 

[stevevw]

I already explained why that isn't the case. It's an equivocation to confuse two different meanings or usages of the word 'nature'.

Actually I wasnt talking about the meaning of nature but 2 different approaches to accounting for nature.

Who is suggesting that matter is 'necessarily a true representations of reality'? What is that even supposed to mean? Scientists come up with all kinds of untestable fringe ideas about the fundamental nature of reality, which make no difference at all to either physics or everyday life. Most people take what they perceive to be real, unless they have good reason to think otherwise.

Most scientist believe that nature is made up of matter outside the mind and there is nothing else. I am pointing out thats a metaphysical assumption.

I think the available evidence suggests consciousness is a brain activity, so I give very low credence to ideas involving panpsychism, but the idea that information could be self-organising is not so far-fetched - plenty of systems are self-organizing and information is fundamental in that, but as it is, it's too vague to comment. But why anyone thinks that a (pseudo)scientific idea being compatible with ancient Hermetic and Indian philosophy is noteworthy, I don't know.

But if the science methid is limited in determining what consciousness is isnt making claims about consciousness based on scientific evidence based on an assumption. You give very low credence to other ideas of consciousness like panpsychism because you assume that consciousness must be something caused by a physical brain whereas it may lay outside that.

Of course they can make the claim - many scientists claim a belief in the supernatural, which is generally a theological claim - so what?

They can make those claims but only within the parameter of a materialist measure of things. Beyond that they cannot possibly know as there is no way of measuring this.

 

[SelfSim]

Most scientist believe that nature is made up of matter outside the mind and there is nothing else. I am pointing out thats a metaphysical assumption.

Does it matter, even if it is? (Especially when its their own personal belief they're expressing which might well be based on their beliefs about metaphysics).

But if the science methid is limited in determining what consciousness is isnt making claims about consciousness based on scientific evidence based on an assumption.

Just about all claims made about consciousness are based on assumptions. The question is how those assumptions are arrived at. If science has anything at all to say about consciouness, you can bet the terms used in those claims, (or descriptions), will have already been objectively tested, or are testable in principle.

I personally think consciousness is the base assumption for everything our minds/brain comes up with.

Oh .. and I also don't see that the scientific method is limited in any way there. (More like its a feature that it isn't!)

You give very low credence to other ideas of consciousness like panpsychism because you assume that consciousness must be something caused by a physical brain whereas it may lay outside that.

Any assumptions made there, will be testable either in practice or in principle, and are likely to have evidence based support coming from other, more diverse, areas.

They can make those claims but only within the parameter of a materialist measure of things.

Which is based on beliefs!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No, you are mistaken. Questions like this are important to science because "science needs to know what a specie's optimum is" (something that can be achieved in Heaven) and "science needs to know objectively what a subspecie's potential is (something that can be motivated by Heaven).

No. These are not important for science; heaven is not a scientific concept.

I think because you phrase the relationship as "a problem" your sin, remains "getting more difficult".

You were the one who said, "The problem for science is that it is possible to discover things, for which no word is enough." I'm asking why you think it's a problem.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The reasons for expecting water to come out of a tap, can be based on physics (which is quite reliable). The reasons for expecting the car to be there in the morning, is based on the belief that personal past experiences will recur (aka: a belief in determinism .. which is quite unreliable).
One is not based on a belief .. the other isn't.

I disagree; both are assumptions based on experientially based expectations (inference).

Most people have no idea of the physics of water supply and if they did it might give them some reason to expect leaks or outages. They assume water will come out of the tap because it is 'supposed to' (that's what taps are for) and it 'always' has in the past (brief outages are quickly forgotten).

Just my view of things. YMMV.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Actually I wasnt talking about the meaning of nature but 2 different approaches to accounting for nature.

Yes. But you're conflating two different meanings and usages, as previously explained.

Most scientist believe that nature is made up of matter outside the mind and there is nothing else. I am pointing out thats a metaphysical assumption.

It's certainly a metaphysical issue - the assumption is your claim that most scientists believe it. But if they do, so what?

How do you do science without observables?

But if the science methid is limited in determining what consciousness is isnt making claims about consciousness based on scientific evidence based on an assumption.

I can't parse that, you might want to say it more coherently.

You give very low credence to other ideas of consciousness like panpsychism because you assume that consciousness must be something caused by a physical brain whereas it may lay outside that.

No. I've asked you several times not to misrepresent me or tell me what I think or put words in my mouth. I explicitly told you why I give such ideas low credence. Go read my post.

They can make those claims but only within the parameter of a materialist measure of things. Beyond that they cannot possibly know as there is no way of measuring this.

Exactly - and if that's the case, there's no possibility of evidence, so no one else can possibly know either - which would explain why there are so many different, conflicting, unsubstantiated, untestable, fanciful claims about what is supposedly 'beyond the material'.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If I understand Popper correctly, he believed that the one thing scientists could do with theories is refute them. That's useful because when a theory is refuted, it opens the door for further understanding as a new and more accurate theory, consistent with new information, can be constructed.

Yes, but unfortunately, there's a lot of misunderstanding about Popperian falsification, even among scientists.

The realm of scientific theories is not as simple as the 'black swan' example so often used to explain falsification. No theory stands in isolation, they all depend on a network of other theories and principles, which give them a certain 'elasticity'. So it's rare that a scientific theory can be falsified by a single contrary example. Also, sometimes what appears to be the falsification of a theory turns out to be the overturning of an assumption (e.g. never given sufficient rigorous testing to qualify).

In practice, there tends to be an accumulation of falsifying evidence that either results in a radical reworking of the theory, or forms the basis of a better theory. Even in paradigm shifts, the new theories often subsume the old as special cases or in limited domains.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes, but unfortunately, there's a lot of misunderstanding about Popperian falsification, even among scientists.

The realm of scientific theories is not as simple as the 'black swan' example so often used to explain falsification. No theory stands in isolation, they all depend on a network of other theories and principles, which give them a certain 'elasticity'. So it's rare that a scientific theory can be falsified by a single contrary example. Also, sometimes what appears to be the falsification of a theory turns out to be the overturning of an assumption (e.g. never given sufficient rigorous testing to qualify).

In practice, there tends to be an accumulation of falsifying evidence that either results in a radical reworking of the theory, or forms the basis of a better theory. Even in paradigm shifts, the new theories often subsume the old as special cases or in limited domains.

Yes. Rarely do we see a revolution in science. Mostly, it's refinement and correction of existing theories. The notable exception in my lifetime was plate tectonics, which revolutionized geology. Few scientists supported Wegener's "continental drift" theory, until ocean research turned up mid-oceanic spreading sites which showed the mechanism for the movement of plates.

 

[durangodawood]

...They both have to make the lights go on in a house. One applies a model for electricity because it might be true, or truly exists, in some "material" (or physical) reality. The other uses the same model because it has proven to make lights come on, but is well aware that is a working model and does not think it "refers to" some material/physical reality, which truly exists independently from him....

What if one electrician screws up and forgets to turn off the breaker (which exists in his mind) and kills his self (which exists only in his mind)?

Is his own death totally mind dependent?

 

[SelfSim]

I disagree; both are assumptions based on experientially based expectations (inference).

Most people have no idea of the physics of water supply and if they did it might give them some reason to expect leaks or outages. They assume water will come out of the tap because it is 'supposed to' (that's what taps are for) and it 'always' has in the past (brief outages are quickly forgotten).

Just my view of things. YMMV.

Different people experience things in different ways and then hold those experiences as being true, sometimes for the rest of their lives. Does that make them true?
'Most people' there, also don't think in scientific ways. Instead, they are guided by their beliefs.

 

[SelfSim]

What if one electrician screws up and forgets to turn off the breaker (which exists in his mind) and kills his self (which exists only in his mind)?

I know what you mean when you use the phrase 'kills his self', because we all share in a common type of mind which conveys such meanings via in-common, shared languages (in this case, the English language). He's toast because of his mistake .. I get it.
We also know that his forgetting to turn off the breaker will bring on his now sorry state.
In fact, its also all a hypothetical scenario too. Try doing one without a mind!

Our mind is what does all the knowing and hypothesising there.
Its all mind dependent stuff and never evidence for mind independence.

Is his own death totally mind dependent?

It took my mind to decode what you meant there by 'death'. Could I do that without using my mind? Could any other human do that? If your answer is 'yes', then it will have taken your own mind to come up with that answer and what's more, that answer can be simply demonstrated as being a pure belief.

There's zip evidence of anything existing independently from human minds in anything you've come up with there (and tonnes of evidence for its dependence on human minds).

 

[durangodawood]

....There's zip evidence of anything existing independently from human minds in anything you've come up with there (and tonnes of evidence for its dependence on human minds).

I cant think of any evidence that would satisfy you for a mind independent reality even if it was true. So the lack of evidence is not any kind of useful test anyway, right?

(Also, when you asked me to imagine 2 electricians, I imagined them existing in the real world rather than just in my head. Maybe I was doing it wrong?)