Science

[Received]

If you're defining truth as something which is impossible to attain and then criticizing methods for failing to attain it, you're not really saying much. Sounds like a problem in however you're defining truth rather than with science.

I can't help but notice you don't compare the relative track records of various approaches at generating knowledge. Any particular reason for that?

That you would see speaking beyond science as making truth impossible to attain isn't surprising at all.

"Track record," for the millionth time and as is the tendency in your posts, refers to an arbitrary change from veracity to what works. Those are different things. I'd recommend taking a peek at the psychological literature on the influences of religion on mental health since we're speaking of pragmatism.

 

[Received]

Trust me, science is a completely useless way of deciding if, for example, every even integer greater than 4 can be expressed as the sum of two odd primes. It's not much help on moral issues either.

Science has a restricted domain (the physical universe) and even within its domain, it's less reliable than mathematics is in the mathematical domain. Indeed, that must be so, since science begins by assuming the truth of mathematics.

And, I must point out, I am a scientist.

Being a scientist -- or a member of any profession -- by no means implies you understand the philosophical underpinnings which constitute it. I can say that as a therapist with a million other therapists who have no idea how therapy works but just chug along with their own opinions about everything and try to go to conferences to stay up to snuff on techniques that work. Let's keep the appeals to self-authority out of it.

I never disagreed with your first paragraph. You'll have to explain how it relates to your other responses so far. When I say science is the most reliable way of getting to the truth, I mean it's more reliable than experience, reason, and intuition, even though it (science) presupposes the other three. Regarding mathematics: that's definitely the most reliable way of getting to truth. What I'm saying is that mathematics is constituted by reasoning, and reasoning in general (of which mathematics is the most reliable part but not the only part) is less reliable than science. Why? Because science is more systematic than reasoning; you're much more likely to narrow down a hypothesis by rejecting a null hypothesis with careful methods and peer review, whereas with reasoning in general you just have premises and conclusions, which are conditional on one person's reasoning ability.

That's rather incoherent. If you mean "science is the most reliable means of ascertaining truth in general," I think that's obviously false, for the reasons outlined above.

If it's incoherent it's because I'm assimilating the distinctions you threw down (regarding physical or not universes).

... but I think this thread has probably passed its useful life.

Whew!

 

[lesliedellow]

What is it not, in the context of exploring reality?

It isn't history.
It isn't geography.
It isn't economics.
It isn't linguistics.
It isn't politics.
It isn't philosophy.
It isn't theology.

That would be silly.

That doesn't stop people doing it.

The unfalsifiable cannot be falsified.

The existence of God doesn't have to be falsified before people can start finding other gods to worship. Your first remark above reveals what your god is.

 

[Davian]

It isn't history.
It isn't geography.
It isn't economics.
It isn't linguistics.
It isn't politics.
It isn't philosophy.
It isn't theology.

lol. Even with that last one, people apply science. It fails, but they do try, as you will see if you frequent the Physical and Life Sciences forum of this site.

That doesn't stop people doing it.

Who are these people? Do you have names?

The existence of God doesn't have to be falsified

Define "God" as you understand the word, and explain how we would test it, and how its existence might be falsified.

before people can start finding other gods to worship. Your first remark above reveals what your god is.

What is that, exactly? Tell me what I worship, and how you know this.

 

[Davian]

That you would see speaking beyond science as making truth impossible to attain isn't surprising at all.

"Track record," for the millionth time and as is the tendency in your posts, refers to an arbitrary change from veracity to what works. Those are different things. I'd recommend taking a peek at the psychological literature on the influences of religion on mental health since we're speaking of pragmatism.

The influences of religion on mental health as an endorsement for religion? Would not that be like giving credit for the medicinal value of the placebo effect to the sugar in the sugar pill?

 

[Received]

The influences of religion on mental health as an endorsement for religion? Would not that be like giving credit for the medicinal value of the placebo effect to the sugar in the sugar pill?

Roflcoptercrassshhhhhhhh!

So I argue, as I typically do, from veracity, then Ken takes it to pragmatism, so I stay with pragmatism for just a bit while appealing to the need for veracity, then you jump in and are like, "YOU'RE TALKING FROM PRAGMATISM?"

u guise

 

[Davian]

...

So I argue, as I typically do, from veracity,

 

[Radagast]

Numbers and mathematics are just logical descriptors of the one reality. There can be no description of that which does not exist, and therefore (and quite clearly) numbers/mathematics exist as a part of the physical universe.

Roger Penrose and I will continue to disagree with you, and will continue to believe in a Platonic mathematical world distinct from the physical universe.

And that word "clearly" -- I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[BL2KTN]

Roger Penrose and I will continue to disagree with you, and will continue to believe in a Platonic mathematical world distinct from the physical universe.

And that word "clearly" -- I do not think it means what you think it means.

Okay, here's your chance to prove me wrong:

Write down a number for a numeral which cannot exist as a description for this reality. If there is one, they are separate worlds. If you can't, then numbers are what I say.

 

[Radagast]

Okay, here's your chance to prove me wrong

You have a belief that the physical is all that exists. Most mathematicians and most scientists don't share that belief, but I can't "prove you wrong," because you can always cut mathematics back to fit your chosen belief system.

However, you never responded to this:

And I'd be interested to hear what it means for the number 2^57,885,161 - 1 (or better yet, all the infinitely many digits of pi) to exist within the physical universe.

The prime number P = 2^57,885,161 - 1 is enormously greater than the number of particles in the observable universe (roughly 2^286), so it is unclear what, within the physical universe, it represents. And I can easily write down symbols for much, much larger numbers, such as (P!)^(P!).

And, of course, the infinitely many digits of pi cannot fit into a finite universe at all.

Write down a number for a numeral which cannot exist as a description for this reality. If there is one, they are separate worlds. If you can't, then numbers are what I say.

I'm finding the arrogance of that comment a little breathtaking. Naturally, you believe you're much smarter than Roger Penrose, but that's another belief I don't share.

And, of course, your logic is fallacious. A response to what I write down does not disprove the existence of a Platonic mathematical world.

 

[Received]

lol

You're a cute troll at least, Davian.

 

[BL2KTN]

The prime number P = 2^57,885,161 - 1 is enormously greater than the number of particles in the observable universe (roughly 2^286), so it is unclear what, within the physical universe, it represents. And I can easily write down symbols for much, much larger numbers, such as (P!)^(P!).

Given that the majority of the universe is dark matter and we have no idea how many particles might be associated, your determination for particles in the observable universe is silly. And given that the universe may feature many different infinites, the idea that big numbers satisfy my request is juvenile.

And, of course, the infinitely many digits of pi cannot fit into a finite universe at all.

The infinite numbers of pi represent infinite divisions. The universe can be logically, infinitely divided. This, again, is a juvenile mistake.

I'm finding the arrogance of that comment a little breathtaking. Naturally, you believe you're much smarter than Roger Penrose, but that's another belief I don't share.

I just know other really smart people who disagree with Penrose (plus, I don't think Penrose really agrees with your position).

And, of course, your logic is fallacious. A response to what I write down does not disprove the existence of a Platonic mathematical world.

Correct, but it does disprove the idea that your belief is based on evidence. It's more or less based on prose.

 

[Radagast]

Given that the majority of the universe is dark matter and we have no idea how many particles might be associated

Let's compensate for dark matter then. That would be at most a few order of magnitude. Taking 2^290 or 2^300 doesn't really alter my point.

your determination for particles in the observable universe is silly

It's the one most cosmologists quote.

And given that the universe may feature many different infinites

Really? "Many different infinites"? And equally well the universe may be finite. Most scientists think it is.

The infinite numbers of pi represent infinite divisions

Really? I was talking about an infinite list of digits. How do they represent "divisions"? And of what?

The universe can be logically, infinitely divided.

Really? You don't believe space is quantised, then? Many physicists do. And I don't think that word "logically" means what you think it means either.

plus, I don't think Penrose really agrees with your position

He's one of the most well-known of mathematical Platonists, actually. Read his books.

the idea that big numbers satisfy my request is juvenile

Well, at least you didn't start become unacceptably rude until you lost the debate. Goodbye.

 

[BL2KTN]

Let's compensate for dark matter then. That would be at most a few order of magnitude. Taking 2^290 or 2^300 doesn't really alter my point.

Okay, and now how about the number of all strings in the universe if String Theory is true?

As you can see, big numbers are not an answer to my reasonable request (which you reasonably tried to answer).

It's the one most cosmologists quote.

Can you provide me with the survey that shows "most cosmologists" use the number you gave?

Really? "Many different infinites"? And equally well the universe may be finite. Most scientists think it is.

I didn't say the universe itself is infinite. I said it features infinites. As an example, an electron can be in an infinite number of locations at once in a given moment of time.

Really? I was talking about an infinite list of digits. How do they represent "divisions"? And of what?

Each additional digit in pi represents a further division of the conceptual polygon's edges for addition of new vertices. Each more precise calculation of pi expresses an attempt to reach a perfect circle via this polygonal representation (impossible and thus why the number is infinite and illogical).

Really? You don't believe space is quantised, then? Many physicists do. And I don't think that word "logically" means what you think it means either.

Space can be infinitely divided, matter cannot.

He's one of the most well-known of mathematical Platonists, actually. Read his books.

Where you and he disagree is that he doesn't view the mathematical world as separate from the universe, but rather a world within it. He disagrees with you (it seems), and I disagree with both of you.

Well, at least you didn't start become unacceptably rude until you lost the debate. Goodbye.

I asked you to prove numbers exists separate of the universe by providing me with a number that can't possibly describe the universe (thus showing that numbers are not logical descriptors of the physical universe). To do this, you gave a big number. That is a juvenile response. It's like asking a child what is a number you can't count and they say, "a thousand!" I wasn't trying to be rude and I haven't lost any debate. If you wish to pout and run off, that is fine, but it won't be because I have been rude - you are a valuable human being and I value your well-being.

 

[Davian]

lol

You're a cute troll at least, Davian.

Is this forum that is your echo chamber not working for you?

 

[Received]

Is this forum that is your echo chamber not working for you?

I have stopped beating my wife, actually. Um.

 

[Radagast]

Being a scientist -- or a member of any profession -- by no means implies you understand the philosophical underpinnings which constitute it

Well, I do, actually. On the other hand, I'm not sure you quite understand how science actually works at the coal-face.

When I say science is the most reliable way of getting to the truth, I mean it's more reliable than experience, reason, and intuition, even though it (science) presupposes the other three. Regarding mathematics: that's definitely the most reliable way of getting to truth. What I'm saying is that mathematics is constituted by reasoning, and reasoning in general (of which mathematics is the most reliable part but not the only part) is less reliable than science.

Science can't be more reliable than reasoning if it's built on reasoning.

Because science is more systematic than reasoning

with reasoning in general you just have premises and conclusions, which are conditional on one person's reasoning ability

One can have peer review of reasoning. That's what mathematics does, for example.

 

[Received]

Well, I do, actually. On the other hand, I'm not sure you quite understand how science actually works.

Tell me another story, daddy.

Science can't be more reliable than reasoning if it's built on reasoning.

It's not built exclusively on reason, though. It's built on reason (because it's a philosophy), but also built on experience (hence science is empirical).

:metaconfused:

One can have peer review of reasoning. That's what mathematics does, for example.

Sure. Can have. This would stand as a good point only if all reasoning involved peer review. That's not what I said.

 

[Radagast]

Tell me another story, daddy.

No, thanks. I think further interaction with you is pointless as well.

I would suggest, however, that you learn some science before pontificating about it.

 

[boozle]

Well, that's obviously false, unless you add the words "about the physical universe."

Clearly the most reliable way of "getting to the truth" about mathematics, for example, is mathematical proof.

Well it IS the science of mathematics, right?