Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[AV1611VET]

I don't see why I need to define what an object is to say that if I pick something up, hold it out not even to full arm's length, and then let go of it, it will fall to the floor or whatever is beneath me, thus showing the fact of gravity as it's known on Earth.
Do that as an experiment, then get back to me.

Do you know what a noun is?

It's a person, a place, or a thing.

Not all nouns can be studied scientifically, yet they exist.

 

[Fervent]

I don't see why I need to define what an object is to say that if I pick something up, hold it out not even to full arm's length, and then let go of it, it will fall to the floor or whatever is beneath me, thus showing the fact of gravity as it's known on Earth.
Do that as an experiment, then get back to me.

That's a bunch of words. But if you can't define what an object is, then how will I know that whatever the "something" is that I pick up qualifies as an object? What you've described is a phenomenal appearance, and imposed upon it an understanding by naming it an "object". We can certainly describe behavior and appearance but we can't get at the underlying facts involved without supplying some non-testable ontological understanding. I don't know if objects truly exist, at least not in the sense that people typically speak of "objective reality". I do know that there are real referrents to scientific theories, but if the philosophical commitments like historical determination and self-sufficiency of objects in some way aren't true the overall theories aren't true and are instead just very useful fictions. The methods involved lead to profitable research, but I find the proposition that phenomenal description is capable of bridging the gap to ontological status rather dubious.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's a bunch of words. But if you can't define what an object is, then how will I know that whatever the "something" is that I pick up qualifies as an object? What you've described is a phenomenal appearance, and imposed upon it an understanding by naming it an "object". We can certainly describe behavior and appearance but we can't get at the underlying facts involved without supplying some non-testable ontological understanding. I don't know if objects truly exist, at least not in the sense that people typically speak of "objective reality". I do know that there are real referrents to scientific theories, but if the philosophical commitments like historical determination and self-sufficiency of objects in some way aren't true the overall theories aren't true and are instead just very useful fictions. The methods involved lead to profitable research, but I find the proposition that phenomenal description is capable of bridging the gap to ontological status rather dubious.

Use whatever definition of object you want.

But the fact of gravity is: thing goes up, thing goes down. Doesn't matter how long it takes, the thing will come down eventually.

 

[AV1611VET]

Use whatever definition of object you want.

But the fact of gravity is: thing goes up, thing goes down. Doesn't matter how long it takes, the thing will come down eventually.

Discovered by cause and effect.

 

[Fervent]

Use whatever definition of object you want.

The definition is needed to determine the factual basis of the statement. If I define "object" as an abstract object like love, peace, tranquility, or some other abstraction then the statement isn't factual. I can't drop love and watch it fall to the floor, but it remains appropriate to refer to it as an object.

But the fact of gravity is: thing goes up, thing goes down. Doesn't matter how long it takes, the thing will come down eventually.

That's a description of an observable behavior, and only requires a real referrent not necessarily a factual basis. When we keep it at a common sense level of things like mugs and basketballs, appearance is sufficient for explanation. But when we get into theoretical concepts like quarks it becomes exceedingly unclear what we mean by many of the words we use to describe the phenomena and we are far removed from simple understandings.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Discovered by cause and effect.

Tad bit more complicated than that.

 

[River Jordan]

Circular reasoning.

Empty accusation.

Atheists put a metaphysical spin on it as well, it's just that the atheistic spin is embedded into the process and anyone who questions it has the wagons circled around them.

What "atheistic spin" do you think is embedded into the scientific process?

I have yet to encounter someone who doesn't have some philosophical understanding of what science is supposed to be explaining, though some do so implicitly rather than explicitly. While lip service is paid to the recognition that science doesn't study "truth" it is generally argued by people who believe in science that scientific discoveries are true(or at least approximately true)

Saving this for the last point.

Philosophy operates on different levels, just because narrowly focusing on specific details doesn't reveal an assumed philosophy doesn't mean when we look at the whole forest philosophy doesn't play a part.

Yeah, this is why I have little to no use for philosophical debates. You claimed that scientific conclusions without philosophy are meaningless. I gave a specific example of a meaningful scientific conclusion without philosophy and you just wave it away by calling it "narrowly focusing on specific details".

FYI, narrowly focusing on details is how science works.

Sure, science has brought a great deal of value to the world. It has a great deal of utility. But as you said yourself, science doesn't study truth or falsity. Yet most people seem to expect it to provide them with true statements, so is it studying truth or isn't it?

This is where I figured we were heading, a philosophical debate about "what is truth". To repeat, I have no use for such endeavors.

 

[River Jordan]

So I would assume the moon would be an exception to your point that 'scientists have managed to figure out the nature and origins of lots of things' ?

I told you I haven't looked into it, so obviously I can't say one way or the other.

I try and maintain a level of humility that keeps me from spouting off about things I really don't know much about.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The definition is needed to determine the factual basis of the statement. If I define "object" as an abstract object like love, peace, tranquility, or some other abstraction then the statement isn't factual. I can't drop love and watch it fall to the floor, but it remains appropriate to refer to it as an object.

That's a description of an observable behavior, and only requires a real referrent not necessarily a factual basis. When we keep it at a common sense level of things like mugs and basketballs, appearance is sufficient for explanation. But when we get into theoretical concepts like quarks it becomes exceedingly unclear what we mean by many of the words we use to describe the phenomena and we are far removed from simple understandings.

And this is why I don't like philosophical commentary. Needlessly complicating a fact with abstract unnecessaries. If you have to quibble over the term 'object', which is a readily known and understood word with an easily searchable definition, then I question the point of conversing.

And gravity is not a theoretical concept in the slightest. It's a force of nature that, while not perfectly understood, is readily known and accepted as a fact of and on Earth.

This is why I prefer talking with engineers. They're decidedly more straightforward and easier to understand.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Circular reasoning.

You keep using that phrase ...

 

[Fervent]

Empty accusation.

Justifying science with science is circular. Nothing more needs to be said there.

What "atheistic spin" do you think is embedded into the scientific process?

Physicalist metaphysics

Saving this for the last point.

Yeah, this is why I have little to no use for philosophical debates. You claimed that scientific conclusions without philosophy are meaningless. I gave a specific example of a meaningful scientific conclusion without philosophy and you just wave it away by calling it "narrowly focusing on specific details".

FYI, narrowly focusing on details is how science works.

You presented a tree, and claimed that it had a greater meaning. But it's only within a theoretical construct that the meaning of the discovery is understood. Without your scientific background, the discovery would hold no significance at all. If you simply presented the data points to someone who hasn't been taught the relevant theoretical issues, do you think the data would hold the same significance? Or would it just be meaningless numbers?

This is where I figured we were heading, a philosophical debate about "what is truth". To repeat, I have no use for such endeavors.

Uh huh....that sounds like a cop-out. I assume you believe that something is true, and you admit that science isn't interested in truth. So where are you getting your truth? Why do you exempt yourself from rigorous interrogation of the things that you believe to be true about the world and claim that you have no use for such endeavors?

 

[River Jordan]

I don't see why I need to define what an object is to say that if I pick something up, hold it out not even to full arm's length, and then let go of it, it will fall to the floor or whatever is beneath me, thus showing the fact of gravity as it's known on Earth.
Do that as an experiment, then get back to me.

That's what people who are into philosophy try and do, drag others into (IMO) meaningless debates that have no practical end. What is truth? What is reality? What is an object? Does reality actually exist?

Philosophers have been going round and round about all that for thousands of years and what has any of it accomplished? Have they managed to actually answer any of their questions?

When I'm in meetings and work groups with my colleagues and someone even hints at any of that, it's really annoying. We're trying to do our work and this person wants to argue about "what is truth"? Nope, we don't have time for that, it's not what we're paid to do, and anyways what's the point?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's what people who are into philosophy try and do, drag others into (IMO) meaningless debates that have no practical end. What is truth? What is reality? What is an object? Does reality actually exist?

Philosophers have been going round and round about all that for thousands of years and what has any of it accomplished? Have they managed to actually answer any of their questions?

When I'm in meetings and work groups with my colleagues and someone even hints at any of that, it's really annoying. We're trying to do our work and this person wants to argue about "what is truth"? Nope, we don't have time for that, it's not what we're paid to do, and anyways what's the point?

I mean, it is basically thinking for the sake of thinking. It has its place and purpose for sure, but when talking about science, it really is just a distraction.

 

[Fervent]

And this is why I don't like philosophical commentary. Needlessly complicating a fact with abstract unnecessaries. If you have to quibble over the term 'object', which is a readily known and understood word with an easily searchable definition, then I question the point of conversing.

It's not readily understood, which is why I asked you for a definition. If you understand it so well, why won't you define it?

And gravity is not a theoretical concept in the slightest. It's a force of nature that, while not perfectly understood, is readily known and accepted as a fact of and on Earth.

Uh huh. All of that is just theoretical concepts. "force", "nature", "known", and several other key phrases are far more complicated than most admit at first blush. There is a scientific theory of gravity that describes an apparently law-like behavior within a set of observations. What that means isn't straightforward or clear. Is it a law that is responsible for the behavior, or is it a property of some fundamental element? Is a quantum particle an object, is an atomic element an object, or a molecule? What is an object, and what creates the seeming object permanence? These aren't things we can simply take for granted.

This is why I prefer talking with engineers. They're decidedly more straightforward and easier to understand.

Yeah, people tend not to like it when others try to get them to critically evaluate the things they take for granted.

 

[River Jordan]

Justifying science with science is circular.

That's not what I did.

Physicalist metaphysics

You're conflating philosophical naturalism with methodological naturalism.

You presented a tree, and claimed that it had a greater meaning.

Huh? I said nothing about a tree.

But it's only within a theoretical construct that the meaning of the discovery is understood. Without your scientific background, the discovery would hold no significance at all. If you simply presented the data points to someone who hasn't been taught the relevant theoretical issues, do you think the data would hold the same significance? Or would it just be meaningless numbers?

There's a breeding population over here that no one knew about. That would be very meaningful (and self evident) if for example you owned or used the land, regardless of your scientific background.

Uh huh....that sounds like a cop-out. I assume you believe that something is true, and you admit that science isn't interested in truth. So where are you getting your truth? Why do you exempt yourself from rigorous interrogation of the things that you believe to be true about the world and claim that you have no use for such endeavors?

Nope, not a cop out. I've spent time with philosophically minded people enough and it's just not a mindset I share. I have no interest in endless thought exercises and questioning every little thing ad infinitum, all to no practical end.

You're free to do so of course, and if you ever arrive at something significant you should share it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's not readily understood, which is why I asked you for a definition. If you understand it so well, why won't you define it?

How about you look up the definition of object online and I'll tell you if I agree with the definition or not. I don't have to do your job for you.

Uh huh. All of that is just theoretical concepts. "force", "nature", "known", and several other key phrases are far more complicated than most admit at first blush. There is a scientific theory of gravity that describes an apparently law-like behavior within a set of observations. What that means isn't straightforward or clear. Is it a law that is responsible for the behavior, or is it a property of some fundamental element? Is a quantum particle an object, is an atomic element an object, or a molecule? What is an object, and what creates the seeming object permanence? These aren't things we can simply take for granted.

No, a scientific law nor a scientific theory is not a theoretical concept. They both describe the world around us using empirical data and mathematical statements. The law of attraction, which deals with the theory of gravity, is a scientific law. To ask 'what' anything is, is just needless quibbling.

Yeah, people tend not to like it when others try to get them to critically evaluate the things they take for granted.

And many things do not need to be evaluated more critically than they are. Ergo est. It is therefore it is.

 

[River Jordan]

I mean, it is basically thinking for the sake of thinking. It has its place and purpose for sure, but when talking about science, it really is just a distraction.

Exactly!

I once asked a philosophy professor if he'd accomplished anything tangible in all his years of philosophizing. After a bit of back and forth, eventually he agreed that it's precisely what you described, thought exercises for their own sake.

 

[AV1611VET]

I told you I haven't looked into it, so obviously I can't say one way or the other.

I try and maintain a level of humility that keeps me from spouting off about things I really don't know much about.

Um ... I think it's obvious to me that scientists haven't managed to figure out the nature and origins of the moon yet.

Else there wouldn't be five or six theories about the origin of the moon, would there?

I don't think this is a matter of humility.

I'd say it's more a matter of obvious uncertainty.

In other words, you don't even have to look into it.

Five theories about anything should tell you they haven't concluded anything yet.

 

[Fervent]

That's not what I did.


You're conflating philosophical naturalism with methodological naturalism.

I'm not, as I have repeatedly said I take no issue with methodologies of science and exclusively speaking of naturalist explanations within scientific models.

Huh? I said nothing about a tree.

I didn't make the analogy clear enough, I was referring to "missing the forest for the trees" in that you presented a single "tree" and denied the reality of the forest it is a part of.

There's a breeding population over here that no one knew about. That would be very meaningful (and self evident) if for example you owned or used the land, regardless of your scientific background.

I'm not sure what the significance you are meaning to convey by this is? Why exactly would a breeding population(and a breeding population of what, exactly?) have any significance?

Nope, not a cop out. I've spent time with philosophically minded people enough and it's just not a mindset I share. I have no interest in endless thought exercises and questioning every little thing ad infinitum, all to no practical end.

It has much practical value, but typically philosophy isn't approached methodically and is nothing but naked speculation. Analytic philosophy requires a referrent, and is just about challenging things that are otherwise taken as a given.

You're free to do so of course, and if you ever arrive at something significant you should share it.

I prefer not to cast my pearls before swine. Either people play the game with me, and I facilitate walking them down the rabbit hole to discover their own foundations, or the discussion remains at an impasse.

 

[BCP1928]

It's not readily understood, which is why I asked you for a definition. If you understand it so well, why won't you define it?

Uh huh. All of that is just theoretical concepts. "force", "nature", "known", and several other key phrases are far more complicated than most admit at first blush. There is a scientific theory of gravity that describes an apparently law-like behavior within a set of observations. What that means isn't straightforward or clear. Is it a law that is responsible for the behavior, or is it a property of some fundamental element? Is a quantum particle an object, is an atomic element an object, or a molecule? What is an object, and what creates the seeming object permanence? These aren't things we can simply take for granted.

Yeah, people tend not to like it when others try to get them to critically evaluate the things they take for granted.

Ontological statements made by science are basically working assumptions. In the end, all science can demonstrate is instrumentality. So what? fail to see the point you are trying to make.